No he is not kidding himself, How does EQ have infinitely more depth to its game play than AC? I know the guy before was being rude but you have nothing backing your claim besides your friends say so. Did you play AC?
Yeah just me and my friends and around half a million other people who chose EQ over AC. The real question is did you even play EQ? Serious question.
It doesn't mean AC was a bad game, but it speaks for itself. Just the people playing on the EQ pvp servers would have been more than all their pvp players and a few of their PvE server playerbases combined. And this wasn't a WoW scenario where another established publisher came along years later with updated graphics, EQ and AC were contemporary. AC even had advantages in some of the features pointed out like a non-zoned world and better graphics, but those things were not enough to pull people away.
So, people thought more popular equals better, even back in 1998 eh?
I thought that was just a WOW thing.
Indeed, numbers don't equal better. There was depth in both games in different ways. I am glad he didn't say it was a sucky game at least. I did play EQ for a while and liked XI better.
This is a very genuine point. Back in the EQ era, EQ was basically what WoW became later.
Most people who played EQ never even tried most of the other MMOs. EQ required so much invested time that the majority of its user-base hardly glanced at other games. Many of the other MMOs that launched in the soon-after era were completely overlooked. To further complicate things, let's not forget just how niche MMOs were back then, either. It wasn't like you were constantly hearing about those other games when they popped up.
Many of those MMOs that followed in EQ's wake, such as Asheron's Call, etc., were victims of the time rather than of inferior gameplay.
You make it sound like people were living in caves. Any gamer who played MMORPGs checked out other games. I mean what you're saying makes little sense the fact that they found Everquest means they do look for games.
No he is not kidding himself, How does EQ have infinitely more depth to its game play than AC? I know the guy before was being rude but you have nothing backing your claim besides your friends say so. Did you play AC?
Yeah just me and my friends and around half a million other people who chose EQ over AC. The real question is did you even play EQ? Serious question.
It doesn't mean AC was a bad game, but it speaks for itself. Just the people playing on the EQ pvp servers would have been more than all their pvp players and a few of their PvE server playerbases combined. And this wasn't a WoW scenario where another established publisher came along years later with updated graphics, EQ and AC were contemporary. AC even had advantages in some of the features pointed out like a non-zoned world and better graphics, but those things were not enough to pull people away.
So, people thought more popular equals better, even back in 1998 eh?
I thought that was just a WOW thing.
Since always. More people thought it was better, but that doesn't make it any less subjective. Regarding better gameplay, yeah I'd say the game with weaker graphics, a clunkier engine and a zoned world that still had 5x the players probably succeeded in achieving better gameplay. Or sorry, gameplay that "appealed to more people" for the sensitive who cannot tolerate such definitive adjectives like 'better'.
OK, then clearly you agree WOW and Lineage 1 are two of the best MMORPGs ever made, since they are the two most popular in the genre's history.
Wait, what about Runescape, doesn't it hold multiple Guiness Book of World records, including "Most Popular Free MMORPG", "Most Forum Posts in a DAY" (27K, gah), and recently Most users in a MMO.
Clearly I've been missing out on one of the "best" MMORPGs in history, if popularity is any judge.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Honestly, one person claiming their mmo is superior and eq is crap has much less credibility than someone that claims his position based on numbers.
Numbers dont tell the whole story its true, but one person's personal opinion (trying to cast it as fact) is worth even less. Especially when his intent is not to promote something, but to trash something.
Though I don't believe AC was unknown seeing as how I knew about it before EQ even launched, there's a few things from AC I'd like in Pantheon. I think the Allegiance System would be a better way of encouraging players to help lower levels than a mentoring system that changes a player's level. They could attach some metrics to players who pledge their allegiance and create a title or rewards system. Much less artificial, imo.
I personally don't want a higher level player helping me as part of a rewards system. That makes me feel like a node or shrub or something to be "ground" for xp or skill ups. "Your skill in helping noobs has increased by 1."
I would rather they do that out of altruism. When I help lower level players, I don't expect to get something out of it in return.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I personally don't want a higher level player helping me as part of a rewards system. That makes me feel like a node or shrub or something to be "ground" for xp or skill ups. "Your skill in helping noobs has increased by 1."
I would rather they do that out of altruism. When I help lower level players, I don't expect to get something out of it in return.
I typically kindly refuse the offer.
I like the enjoy the game as I go rather than blast past all of it just to get to the top
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I personally don't want a higher level player helping me as part of a rewards system. That makes me feel like a node or shrub or something to be "ground" for xp or skill ups. "Your skill in helping noobs has increased by 1."
I would rather they do that out of altruism. When I help lower level players, I don't expect to get something out of it in return.
That's great and all, but would mean few people get the help they need. Rewards don't have to be something amazing. Titles would be cool.
I didn't try EQ until about 2 years after playing AC.... AC was my first MMO experience.. and nothing since than ever came close.. and probably never will anymore
Dullahan said:Rewards don't have to be something amazing. Titles would be cool.
I feel like in some game GMs could award titles if they saw someone doing nice things for other people. I would swear I at least heard that as a rumor.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Numbers don't mean anything.. I already told you why EQ had greater numbers... simply because it launched several months first and AC was poorly marketed.
You guys are forgetting that not even DAoC made much of a dent to EQ during their prime, and DAoC had a huge playerbase! Population does not equal best, or worst, that is subjective. Best pve was EQ, best pvp was DAoC, best soloability was AC1.
Numbers don't mean anything.. I already told you why EQ had greater numbers... simply because it launched several months first and AC was poorly marketed.
and didn't have corny elves and dwarves
my worldview is not supported by numbers, better come up with some excuses!
So numbers equal better? ...ok So WoW is the best MMO gotcha.
To those numbers, perhaps. When WoW came out, it was the best option to me. EQ was no longer EQ.
Numbers don't mean anything.. I already told you why EQ had greater numbers... simply because it launched several months first and AC was poorly marketed.
and didn't have corny elves and dwarves
my worldview is not supported by numbers, better come up with some excuses!
So numbers equal better? ...ok So WoW is the best MMO gotcha.
If more people think it's better, than it's a bit more concrete than your own personal opinion. In the current market, WoW is "regarded" as the best MMORPG - as per the players.
No one said everyone agreed with them, but semantic arguments about it don't really "debunk" anything - nor does being a smartass.
I like the enjoy the game as I go rather than blast past all of it just to get to the top
Cant speak of other MMOs in this respect but in Vanguard you didnt help anyone "blast past all content". For example as a level 55 tank in raid gear, mentored down to level 11-49, depending upon who you mentored, I would offer them a valid group so they could actually do dungeons if there was no other tank available.
If I wouldnt mentor, i.e. stayed at level 55, they wouldnt get any xp.
My main issue was that you couldnt get the script system in Vanguard to work well with mentoring. And you had been absolutely forced to use scripting on a tank in Vanguard because you had to use the instant abilities to maximize dps.
Numbers don't mean anything.. I already told you why EQ had greater numbers... simply because it launched several months first and AC was poorly marketed.
and didn't have corny elves and dwarves
my worldview is not supported by numbers, better come up with some excuses!
So numbers equal better? ...ok So WoW is the best MMO gotcha.
If more people think it's better, than it's a bit more concrete than your own personal opinion. In the current market, WoW is "regarded" as the best MMORPG - as per the players.
No one said everyone agreed with them, but semantic arguments about it don't really "debunk" anything - nor does being a smartass.
Popularity is an indicated of broad public appeal... This means that many people find the game better than competitors, and many other players agree with them. There's a difference between trying a game simply because it's popular, and continuing to subscribe to/pay for it over extended periods of time...
WoW is still a big game because the players think it's great. It's the Microsoft Office of the MMORPG market.
Many other MMORPGs got initial rushes and then crashed and burned soon after - or were forced to change their business model completely - because the players didn't think they were that good.
That's the difference.
The MMORPGs that have been released since WoW have all been - with very few exceptions - terrible in comparison to it.
You're just going out of your way to create a debate where one does not exist.
Your argument gets even weaker when you factor in the running subscription + expansion costs of WoW, vs. F2P/B2P games which have no subscription and very little long-term costs to play them.
The reason why F2P/B2P works so well, is because people feel more comfortable buying the game and then ditching it since the initial costs are fairly low and there are very few mandatory ongoing costs to owning the game. The low price also means they have low expectations, so they are not likely to complain about things that would be showstoppers if the game had a subscription.
Players who actually invest in F2P/B2P games often end up paying more than they would for WoW, but the low initial cost and the fact that other costs are "optional," has a psychological effect which benefits the game developers/publishers. This is why I take F2P game reviews with a grain of salt. Reviewers are subject to this, and they can often be seen making excuses for non-subscription games simply because the running costs seem optional and lower.
ESO is a great recent example of this. The game was not reviewed all that amazingly by reviewers on release, when it had a subscription. The minute they dropped the subscription, many sites started acting like it was the second coming.
In any case...
People often "try" popular games, but it's very rare that you'll see them continue to pay subscriptions and buy expansions if they don't think the game is any good. Popularity can only get you so far. This is why even WoW loses players - those who don't think it's that good, quit.
It just so happens that, a massive amount of people do think it is.
No he is not kidding himself, How does EQ have infinitely more depth to its game play than AC? I know the guy before was being rude but you have nothing backing your claim besides your friends say so. Did you play AC?
Yeah just me and my friends and around half a million other people who chose EQ over AC. The real question is did you even play EQ? Serious question.
It doesn't mean AC was a bad game, but it speaks for itself. Just the people playing on the EQ pvp servers would have been more than all their pvp players and a few of their PvE server playerbases combined. And this wasn't a WoW scenario where another established publisher came along years later with updated graphics, EQ and AC were contemporary. AC even had advantages in some of the features pointed out like a non-zoned world and better graphics, but those things were not enough to pull people away.
So, people thought more popular equals better, even back in 1998 eh?
I thought that was just a WOW thing.
Indeed, numbers don't equal better. There was depth in both games in different ways. I am glad he didn't say it was a sucky game at least. I did play EQ for a while and liked XI better.
This is a very genuine point. Back in the EQ era, EQ was basically what WoW became later.
Most people who played EQ never even tried most of the other MMOs. EQ required so much invested time that the majority of its user-base hardly glanced at other games. Many of the other MMOs that launched in the soon-after era were completely overlooked. To further complicate things, let's not forget just how niche MMOs were back then, either. It wasn't like you were constantly hearing about those other games when they popped up.
Many of those MMOs that followed in EQ's wake, such as Asheron's Call, etc., were victims of the time rather than of inferior gameplay.
You make it sound like people were living in caves. Any gamer who played MMORPGs checked out other games. I mean what you're saying makes little sense the fact that they found Everquest means they do look for games.
Not necessarily. My wife and I were playing EQ when AC came out and we had no desire to check it out. We were having fun in EQ with our friends (and new friends). There was no reason to check out another game. As I remember a few of our guildmates checked it out, but came back because they missed their friends in EQ.
I don't know if this is just an anomaly or whether people didn't game hop quite so much.
When I am really enjoying a game, I barely ever check out game forums or look for what is next. When people are not enjoying a game, you start to see people in the game you are playing talk about other games, and you look at those some and what is coming out more, as you are enjoying the game you play less. I am not a game hopper, I am in a multi-game guild, and it drives me nuts, people come join the game I am playing and they stay 2-4 weeks, then jump, the guild has a ton of jumpers in it. I take the time to help people, and it ends up being a waste of time, a lot of the time.
I played UO from release till EQ (Still liked UO, but they had real bad lag from mirroring the land mass, and horrible rubber banding, so decided to try EQ). I played EQ till DAoC came out, but got tired of the massive nerfs and changes in DAoC (plus botting got kind of bad for RvR). Went back to EQ/UO, and played a little SWG (like 4-6 months before the NGE and not long after). Played Vanguard till the PvP server died, and didn't play another mmorpg for a long time, was trying to stay away from f2p/p2w, but it was basically impossible (played mostly like Civ IV, StarCraft type stuff). Played Archeage from release, and still in it, but I don't like all the player nation stuff, it's killed the game imo, you either join a big player nation, or play with a bunch of people that don't buff and melt for the most part in PvP (Have 8k gear, but don't like a lot of the player nation people, I enjoy PvP, but I don't like the over jerkish behavior of some people to be around them a lot).
I did try the WoW beta, and I thought it was what I didn't like about EQ on steroids (the instancing and such), and I didn't really get into any of the classes, compared to my EQ Necro. Looking back it is probably way more of what I like in vanilla WoW, verse most newer games.
I hope Pantheon is good, get a little more diversity in games for people, I am tired of the f2p/p2w stuff going on. The companies get greedier and greedier, and it ends up killing the game imo. Archeage has had this $150 pack out with a car forever now it seems, and before it seemed like packs were out for 3-4 weeks max, and it has been out for months. People are buying multiple packs and selling the stuff in the packs for gold. I see it getting even worse, not better.
So reading over the last few pages......... not that any of it has anything to do with graphics. Which frankly isnt even an issue. The graphics are fine and only getting better.
So AC fan 1 dumps on EQ AC fan 2 chastises AC fan 2 and points out its off topic EQ fan defends EQ by dumping on AC There by insulting AC fan 2 who just defended EQ Thread devolves and popularity = best game......?
At a certain point in history EVERYONE believed the world was flat. That too was a popular opinion at the time. Driven is right. There are many variables involved. Too many to just say most popular is best. And even then, most any category is opinion based.
No he is not kidding himself, How does EQ have infinitely more depth to its game play than AC? I know the guy before was being rude but you have nothing backing your claim besides your friends say so. Did you play AC?
Yeah just me and my friends and around half a million other people who chose EQ over AC. The real question is did you even play EQ? Serious question.
It doesn't mean AC was a bad game, but it speaks for itself. Just the people playing on the EQ pvp servers would have been more than all their pvp players and a few of their PvE server playerbases combined. And this wasn't a WoW scenario where another established publisher came along years later with updated graphics, EQ and AC were contemporary. AC even had advantages in some of the features pointed out like a non-zoned world and better graphics, but those things were not enough to pull people away.
So, people thought more popular equals better, even back in 1998 eh?
I thought that was just a WOW thing.
Indeed, numbers don't equal better. There was depth in both games in different ways. I am glad he didn't say it was a sucky game at least. I did play EQ for a while and liked XI better.
This is a very genuine point. Back in the EQ era, EQ was basically what WoW became later.
Most people who played EQ never even tried most of the other MMOs. EQ required so much invested time that the majority of its user-base hardly glanced at other games. Many of the other MMOs that launched in the soon-after era were completely overlooked. To further complicate things, let's not forget just how niche MMOs were back then, either. It wasn't like you were constantly hearing about those other games when they popped up.
Many of those MMOs that followed in EQ's wake, such as Asheron's Call, etc., were victims of the time rather than of inferior gameplay.
You make it sound like people were living in caves. Any gamer who played MMORPGs checked out other games. I mean what you're saying makes little sense the fact that they found Everquest means they do look for games.
Not necessarily. My wife and I were playing EQ when AC came out and we had no desire to check it out. We were having fun in EQ with our friends (and new friends). There was no reason to check out another game. As I remember a few of our guildmates checked it out, but came back because they missed their friends in EQ.
I don't know if this is just an anomaly or whether people didn't game hop quite so much.
Yeah... the old games were generally pretty "grindy" and there really weren't nearly as many games in the genre as there are today. People tended to nest, rather than migrate whenever the season shifts like they do today.
Game hopping just wasn't commonplace back then. In my experience, the majority of people who were already on EQ just didn't care about other MMOs that much.
I knew a person or two here or there who checked out games like AC, AO, SWG, etc., but I don't recall ever seeing a broad knowledge of other MMOs, exceptions being DAoC amongst the PVP crowd and WoW... cause EVERYONE heard about WoW when it hit beta/launch.
The ones that left always came back for another hit of that evercrack.
I guess, in the end, the lesson is that EQ was hard to walk away from -- but I don't honestly believe "better" gameplay was the reason.
I'm sure we can all agree, EQ excelled because of its community more than anything. Whether you believe that was a byproduct of gameplay or otherwise.
Personally, as much as I enjoyed EQ, I definitely think EQ had a lot of terrible gameplay mechanics and bland, boring classes(pure melee classes in EQ were some of the most boring things ever), etc.
No he is not kidding himself, How does EQ have infinitely more depth to its game play than AC? I know the guy before was being rude but you have nothing backing your claim besides your friends say so. Did you play AC?
Yeah just me and my friends and around half a million other people who chose EQ over AC. The real question is did you even play EQ? Serious question.
It doesn't mean AC was a bad game, but it speaks for itself. Just the people playing on the EQ pvp servers would have been more than all their pvp players and a few of their PvE server playerbases combined. And this wasn't a WoW scenario where another established publisher came along years later with updated graphics, EQ and AC were contemporary. AC even had advantages in some of the features pointed out like a non-zoned world and better graphics, but those things were not enough to pull people away.
So, people thought more popular equals better, even back in 1998 eh?
I thought that was just a WOW thing.
Indeed, numbers don't equal better. There was depth in both games in different ways. I am glad he didn't say it was a sucky game at least. I did play EQ for a while and liked XI better.
This is a very genuine point. Back in the EQ era, EQ was basically what WoW became later.
Most people who played EQ never even tried most of the other MMOs. EQ required so much invested time that the majority of its user-base hardly glanced at other games. Many of the other MMOs that launched in the soon-after era were completely overlooked. To further complicate things, let's not forget just how niche MMOs were back then, either. It wasn't like you were constantly hearing about those other games when they popped up.
Many of those MMOs that followed in EQ's wake, such as Asheron's Call, etc., were victims of the time rather than of inferior gameplay.
You make it sound like people were living in caves. Any gamer who played MMORPGs checked out other games. I mean what you're saying makes little sense the fact that they found Everquest means they do look for games.
Not necessarily. My wife and I were playing EQ when AC came out and we had no desire to check it out. We were having fun in EQ with our friends (and new friends). There was no reason to check out another game. As I remember a few of our guildmates checked it out, but came back because they missed their friends in EQ.
I don't know if this is just an anomaly or whether people didn't game hop quite so much.
The ones that left always came back for another hit of that evercrack.
I guess, in the end, the lesson is that EQ was hard to walk away from -- but I don't honestly believe "better" gameplay was the reason.
I'm sure we can all agree, EQ excelled because of its community more than anything. Whether you believe that was a byproduct of gameplay or otherwise.
Personally, as much as I enjoyed EQ, I definitely think EQ had a lot of terrible gameplay mechanics and bland, boring classes(pure melee classes in EQ were some of the most boring things ever), etc.
The social aspect was a product of it's multiplayer design and part of the gameplay. Even if there were some bad mechanics (there were plenty), it still created an environment and progression system that was compelling and addictive above that of it's rivals. That aspect is primarily what I'm hoping Pantheon will succeed in recreating, because mmos since have fallen short, imo.
I guess, in the end, the lesson is that EQ was hard to walk away from -- but I don't honestly believe "better" gameplay was the reason.
I'm sure we can all agree, EQ excelled because of its community more than anything. Whether you believe that was a byproduct of gameplay or otherwise.
Personally, as much as I enjoyed EQ, I definitely think EQ had a lot of terrible gameplay mechanics and bland, boring classes(pure melee classes in EQ were some of the most boring things ever), etc.
Oh, I agree, some of the mechanics and classes were not the best. I only had one main (bard - one of the best classes I've ever seen). I think my next highest alt was 20 something (I quit when EQ2/WoW came out).
I like to think I was one of the best bards out there - but I probably wasn't
EQ only had 1 pure melee character, so their wasn't classes, every other melee was a hybrid that had spells (EQ was balanced around grouping, so warrior almost had to be bland the way they did it, but yes trying to solo level a warrior was like hitting your head against a wall.).
As for graphics, they are fine, I would rather have content. They need to work on animations and such, but it isn't even in pre-alpha (they seem to think it is close to going into that phase), and from watching other games, animations/character touches are one of the last things they work on polishing, so it is barely worth nit picking at this point. They will need to get the animations to be smooth though, a lot of people seem to be sticklers (make or break) for this. It doesn't bother me that much.
Comments
Wait, what about Runescape, doesn't it hold multiple Guiness Book of World records, including "Most Popular Free MMORPG", "Most Forum Posts in a DAY" (27K, gah), and recently Most users in a MMO.
Clearly I've been missing out on one of the "best" MMORPGs in history, if popularity is any judge.
Fug it, EVE still stomps all, screw the masses.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Numbers dont tell the whole story its true, but one person's personal opinion (trying to cast it as fact) is worth even less. Especially when his intent is not to promote something, but to trash something.
I would rather they do that out of altruism. When I help lower level players, I don't expect to get something out of it in return.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I like the enjoy the game as I go rather than blast past all of it just to get to the top
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
and didn't have corny elves and dwarves
If more people think it's better, than it's a bit more concrete than your own personal opinion. In the current market, WoW is "regarded" as the best MMORPG - as per the players.
No one said everyone agreed with them, but semantic arguments about it don't really "debunk" anything - nor does being a smartass.
Thats the "Eat shit - because millions of flies cant be wrong" kind of logic.
Cant speak of other MMOs in this respect but in Vanguard you didnt help anyone "blast past all content". For example as a level 55 tank in raid gear, mentored down to level 11-49, depending upon who you mentored, I would offer them a valid group so they could actually do dungeons if there was no other tank available.
If I wouldnt mentor, i.e. stayed at level 55, they wouldnt get any xp.
My main issue was that you couldnt get the script system in Vanguard to work well with mentoring. And you had been absolutely forced to use scripting on a tank in Vanguard because you had to use the instant abilities to maximize dps.
Popularity is an indicated of broad public appeal... This means that many people find the game better than competitors, and many other players agree with them. There's a difference between trying a game simply because it's popular, and continuing to subscribe to/pay for it over extended periods of time...
WoW is still a big game because the players think it's great. It's the Microsoft Office of the MMORPG market.
Many other MMORPGs got initial rushes and then crashed and burned soon after - or were forced to change their business model completely - because the players didn't think they were that good.
That's the difference.
The MMORPGs that have been released since WoW have all been - with very few exceptions - terrible in comparison to it.
You're just going out of your way to create a debate where one does not exist.
Your argument gets even weaker when you factor in the running subscription + expansion costs of WoW, vs. F2P/B2P games which have no subscription and very little long-term costs to play them.
The reason why F2P/B2P works so well, is because people feel more comfortable buying the game and then ditching it since the initial costs are fairly low and there are very few mandatory ongoing costs to owning the game. The low price also means they have low expectations, so they are not likely to complain about things that would be showstoppers if the game had a subscription.
Players who actually invest in F2P/B2P games often end up paying more than they would for WoW, but the low initial cost and the fact that other costs are "optional," has a psychological effect which benefits the game developers/publishers. This is why I take F2P game reviews with a grain of salt. Reviewers are subject to this, and they can often be seen making excuses for non-subscription games simply because the running costs seem optional and lower.
ESO is a great recent example of this. The game was not reviewed all that amazingly by reviewers on release, when it had a subscription. The minute they dropped the subscription, many sites started acting like it was the second coming.
In any case...
People often "try" popular games, but it's very rare that you'll see them continue to pay subscriptions and buy expansions if they don't think the game is any good. Popularity can only get you so far. This is why even WoW loses players - those who don't think it's that good, quit.
It just so happens that, a massive amount of people do think it is.
Not necessarily. My wife and I were playing EQ when AC came out and we had no desire to check it out. We were having fun in EQ with our friends (and new friends). There was no reason to check out another game. As I remember a few of our guildmates checked it out, but came back because they missed their friends in EQ.
I don't know if this is just an anomaly or whether people didn't game hop quite so much.
I played UO from release till EQ (Still liked UO, but they had real bad lag from mirroring the land mass, and horrible rubber banding, so decided to try EQ). I played EQ till DAoC came out, but got tired of the massive nerfs and changes in DAoC (plus botting got kind of bad for RvR). Went back to EQ/UO, and played a little SWG (like 4-6 months before the NGE and not long after). Played Vanguard till the PvP server died, and didn't play another mmorpg for a long time, was trying to stay away from f2p/p2w, but it was basically impossible (played mostly like Civ IV, StarCraft type stuff). Played Archeage from release, and still in it, but I don't like all the player nation stuff, it's killed the game imo, you either join a big player nation, or play with a bunch of people that don't buff and melt for the most part in PvP (Have 8k gear, but don't like a lot of the player nation people, I enjoy PvP, but I don't like the over jerkish behavior of some people to be around them a lot).
I did try the WoW beta, and I thought it was what I didn't like about EQ on steroids (the instancing and such), and I didn't really get into any of the classes, compared to my EQ Necro. Looking back it is probably way more of what I like in vanilla WoW, verse most newer games.
I hope Pantheon is good, get a little more diversity in games for people, I am tired of the f2p/p2w stuff going on. The companies get greedier and greedier, and it ends up killing the game imo. Archeage has had this $150 pack out with a car forever now it seems, and before it seemed like packs were out for 3-4 weeks max, and it has been out for months. People are buying multiple packs and selling the stuff in the packs for gold. I see it getting even worse, not better.
So AC fan 1 dumps on EQ
AC fan 2 chastises AC fan 2 and points out its off topic
EQ fan defends EQ by dumping on AC
There by insulting AC fan 2 who just defended EQ
Thread devolves and popularity = best game......?
At a certain point in history EVERYONE believed the world was flat. That too was a popular opinion at the time. Driven is right. There are many variables involved. Too many to just say most popular is best. And even then, most any category is opinion based.
Can we at least get back to topic?
Game hopping just wasn't commonplace back then. In my experience, the majority of people who were already on EQ just didn't care about other MMOs that much.
I knew a person or two here or there who checked out games like AC, AO, SWG, etc., but I don't recall ever seeing a broad knowledge of other MMOs, exceptions being DAoC amongst the PVP crowd and WoW... cause EVERYONE heard about WoW when it hit beta/launch.
I guess, in the end, the lesson is that EQ was hard to walk away from -- but I don't honestly believe "better" gameplay was the reason.
I'm sure we can all agree, EQ excelled because of its community more than anything. Whether you believe that was a byproduct of gameplay or otherwise.
Personally, as much as I enjoyed EQ, I definitely think EQ had a lot of terrible gameplay mechanics and bland, boring classes(pure melee classes in EQ were some of the most boring things ever), etc.
I like to think I was one of the best bards out there - but I probably wasn't
As for graphics, they are fine, I would rather have content. They need to work on animations and such, but it isn't even in pre-alpha (they seem to think it is close to going into that phase), and from watching other games, animations/character touches are one of the last things they work on polishing, so it is barely worth nit picking at this point. They will need to get the animations to be smooth though, a lot of people seem to be sticklers (make or break) for this. It doesn't bother me that much.